Xie Huanchi/Xinhua, via Associated Press

Xi Jinping

At
the time, millions of young people were still clawing their way back to
China’s urban centers after being exiled to the countryside in the Mao
era. But 30-year-old Xi Jinpingbucked
the trend, giving up a secure post as adviser to a top military leader
to navigate the tumultuous village politics of Zhengding, in Hebei
Province.

The move offers a window on the
political savvy of Mr. Xi, who, despite a recent two-week absence from
public view that raised questions about his health, is on the cusp of
taking over as China’s supreme leader at a party congress that officials
announced Friday would begin Nov. 8.

Mr. Xi (his
full name is pronounced Shee Jin-ping) gained a measure of credibility
to speak for rural Chinese compared with many other well-connected
children of the elite. He also realized, according to several inside
accounts, that his powerful family stood firmly behind him, ensuring
that his stint in the countryside would be a productive and relatively
brief exercise in résumé building that could propel him up the Communist
Party hierarchy.

His powerful father, Xi
Zhongxun, a revolutionary-era military leader, helped orchestrate his
transfer, selecting Zhengding because of its relative
proximity to Beijing, and later having Mr. Xi reassigned when he ran
into local opposition, Chinese experts who have researched Mr. Xi’s
background said.

His connections allowed him to
take chances in Zhengding. He pushed through market-oriented reforms
when they were still considered cutting edge, and sidelined pro-Maoists.
His stint in the countryside also helped him form new alliances with
other offspring of the elite who would later prove important allies.

Even
three decades into the country’s rapid industrialization, China’s
leadership still pays heed to its heritage as a party of peasants, and
it has tended to promote officials who can claim to be deeply rooted in
the rural struggle. But it has also tended to favor “princelings,” the
privileged offspring of former leaders who had ties to the party’s
revolutionary history.

After his time in Zhengding, Mr. Xi could
check both boxes.

“People think of him as being
from the new generation of technocrats,” says Jin Zhong, a Hong
Kong-based analyst of Chinese political leaders. “But he’s really a
continuation of the red bureaucracy of his father’s generation.”

Mr.
Xi’s trajectory was similar to that of Bo Xilai, another princeling who
used stints in the provinces to create an image of a bold reformer and
champion of the poor before his career was derailed by a major scandal
this year. Mr. Xi’s stay in Zhengding, however, was characteristically
more cautious, even as parts of it have entered modern Chinese political
lore.

When Mr. Xi volunteered for rural duty in
1982, he did so along with two other up-and-coming officials, including
Liu Yuan, son of the former head of state under Mao, Liu Shaoqi.

The
men’s decision to work at the grass roots caught the popular
imagination after the author Ke Yunlu wrote a 1986 novel, “New Star,”
about a party secretary who takes modern, market ideas to a backward
province. The official meets many troubles but manages to triumph.

The
novel’s hero was a composite character based on Mr. Xi and the other
two young officials. The book was soon made into a popular television
series and is still widely known as a classic of that early reform era.

What
Mr. Xi found in Zhengding was less romantic than the novel. He had
hoped to be a party secretary with direct authority over a town or
county but the conservative provincial party secretary, Gao Yang,
blocked that. Disgusted by inexperienced but well-connected princelings
like Mr. Xi parachuting into his domain, Mr. Gao made him deputy party
secretary of Zhengding.

Still, Mr. Xi took on the
assignment with gusto. He wore a green army greatcoat from his
involuntary service in another rural area under Mao, roaming the town
night and day to survey its problems. Wang Youhui, a local official,
wrote in a published essay that he recalls seeing Mr. Xi for the first
time and being taken aback by his plain style.

“I
realized that this guy, who from his style of dress made him look like a
lad from the canteen crew, was the new deputy party secretary,” Mr.
Wang wrote.

Mr.
Xi’s biggest challenge was managing the county’s roads, which were part
of national north-south arteries. They were so bad — strewn with
manure, dirt and grain left out to dry — that the county was labeled in
government reports as “chaotic, dirty and backward.”

Mr.
Xi took firm action. According to internal government histories, he
held mandatory classes for 43,200 people — 10 percent of the county’s
population — on how the roads should be handled. As a member of the
county’s Politics and Law Committee he also helped lead a draconian
crackdown on crime, part of a
nationwide attack on “Spiritual Pollution.”

The
county began holding show trials of criminals through the summer and
autumn of 1983, according to these government accounts. Four people were
executed in public on one occasion.

Later in
1983, Mr. Xi was promoted to party secretary and kept a firm hand on
social issues. Under his leadership the local government strictly
enforced the national one-child policy. According to internal government
documents, the county sterilized 31,000 women and fit another 30,000
with intrauterine contraceptive devices.

Like the
crime campaign, the family planning measures were part of a national
policy and there is no evidence that Mr. Xi was more zealous than
others. But it illustrates a truism for successful Chinese leaders —
that social issues have to be dealt with firmly to create political
space for market-opening economic
measures.

It was in economics as well as personal connections that Mr. Xi stood out.

Zhengding
was a grain-growing center, with peasants forced to grow huge amounts
for central granaries. Mr. Xi formed a clever alliance with Maoists and
used his family ties in Beijing to cut Zhengding’s grain quota by
one-quarter. That freed up farmers to use their land more lucratively,
such as for raising fish, geese or cattle.

Mr. Xi
caused even more of a stir in Zhengding when he tried to make it a
center of television filming. State television was filming the classic
novel “Dream of Red Mansions,” which is set in a palace and surrounding
grounds. Crews had already built an enormous replica of the park in
Beijing. But Mr. Xi used his political connections to get the mansion
built in Zhengding, meaning the cast had to travel six hours to
Zhengding to shoot indoor
scenes.

Despite local opposition, Mr. Xi pushed
through a plan to spend three times the original amount in a bid to make
the set permanent.

The story of building the
television studio is now firmly part of Mr. Xi’s official lore, touted
as an example of his visionary economic leadership. In justifying the
costs, he said it would help create a tourist attraction, and for many
years it was popular because the television series was a huge hit.
Several other shows were also filmed there in the 1980s and early 1990s.
But what is rarely mentioned is that the Rongguofu mansion now gets few
visitors and has not been used as a set for 20 years. It also spawned
two spinoffs in Zhengding that are bankrupt, with one torn down and the
other shuttered.

Despite his clout, and unlike the character in the novel “New Star,” Mr. Xi was not able to vanquish all his enemies.

He
was never promoted beyond county chief. He was blocked, local residents
and biographers say, by Mr. Gao, the provincial party secretary.
According to Hu Lili, one of the authors of a new biography published by
Mirror Books, Mr. Xi’s family decided that three years in Zhengding was
enough. In 1985 his father arranged to have him transferred to China’s
wealthier and more reform-minded coast, where he served under a more
sympathetic party chief with ties to his father.

Yet
the time in Zhengding helped Mr. Xi hone his skills, setting a template
for his rise. It also cemented his bond with Liu Yuan, who is now a
senior leader in the People’s Liberation Army. He also made an ally in
Li Zhanshu, who was a local official in Hebei at the same time as Mr.
Xi. Mr. Li has now been tapped to take over the party’s nerve center,
its General Office.

“You
can’t separate his accomplishments from his political
support,” said Yang Zhongmei, a Xi biographer and lecturer at Yokohama
City University. “This is the model you see today: if you have enough
political support and money, you can accomplish a lot.”

By Emily Anne EpsteinPUBLISHED:09:16 EST, 29
September 2012The United States Military conducted top
secret experiments on the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, for years, exposing
them to radioactive compounds, a researcher has claimed.While it was known that the government sprayed
'harmless' zinc cadmium silfide particles
over the general population in St Louis,
Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociologist at St. Louis Community College,
claims that a radioactive additive was also mixed with the
compound.She has accrued detailed descriptions as well
as photographs of the spraying which exposed the unwitting public, predominantly in low-income and
minority communities, to radioactive
particles.Scroll down
for video

Test: Sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor, right, a
sociologist at St. Louis Community College, has spent years tracking down
declassified documents to uncover the lengths which the US experimented on
people without their knowing. At left, cadmium sulfide, the 'harmless' chemical
sprayed on the public is pictured

Spray: She has accrued detailed descriptions as well as
photographs of the spraying, which took place as part of Manhattan-Rochester
Coalition, which was an operation that dispersed zinc cadmium silfide particles
over the general population, a compound that was presented as completely
safe

'The study was secretive for reason. They
didn't have volunteers stepping up and saying yeah, I'll breathe zinc cadmium
sulfide with radioactive particles,' said Professor Martino-Taylor to KSDK.Through her research, she
found photographs of how the particles were distributed from 1953-1954 and
1963-1965.In Corpus Christi, the chemical was dropped
from airplanes over large swathes of city. In St Louis, the Army put chemical
sprayers on buildings, like schools and public housing projects, and mounted
them in station wagons for mobile use.

Despite the extent of the experiment, local
politicians were not notified about the content of the testing. The people of St
Louis were told that the Army was testing smoke screens to protect cities from a
Russian attack.'It was pretty shocking. The level of
duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people,'
Professor Martino-Taylor said.

Controversial: But Professor Martino-Taylor says that it
wasn't just the 'harmless' compound, radioactive particles were also sprayed on
the unwitting public. A woman refills the spray canisters in this archive
picture

Scope: In St Louis, the Army put chemical sprayers on
buildings, like schools and public housing projects, and mounted them in station
wagons for mobile use

She accrued hundreds of pages of declassified
information, which she has made available online.In her research, she found that the greatest
concentration of spraying in St Louis was at the Pruitt-Igoe public housing
complex, which was home to 10,000 low income residents. She said that 70 per
cent of those residents were children under the age of 12.Professor Martino-Taylor became interested in
the topic after hearing independent reports of cancers among city residents
living in those areas at the time.'This was a violation of all medical ethics,
all international codes, and the military's own policy at that time,' said
Professor Martino-Taylor.

How To: Despite the extent of the experiment, local
politicians were not notified about the content of the testing. In this picture,
a man demonstrates how to spray the canisters

School: The people of St Louis were told that the Army was
testing smoke screens to protect cities from a Russian attack. A canister is
positioned on top of a school in this photo

'There is a lot of evidence that shows people
in St. Louis and the city, in particular minority communities, were subjected to
military testing that was connected to a larger radiological weapons testing
project.'Previous investigations of the compound were
rebuffed by the military, which insisted it was safe. However, Professor Martino-Taylor believes the
documents she's uncovered, prove the zinc cadmium silfide was also mixed with
radioactive particles.She has linked the St Louis testing to a
now-defunct company called US Radium. The controversial company came under fire,
and numerous lawsuits, after several of its workers were exposed to dangerous
levels of radioactive materials in its fluorescent paint.

Contaminated: The Army has admitted that it added a
fluorescent substance to the 'harmless' compound, but whether or not the
additive was radioactive remains classified

Exposed: In her research, she found that the greatest
concentration of spraying in St Louis was at the Pruit-Igoe public housing
complex, which was home to 10,000 low income residents. She said that 70 per
cent of those residents were children under the age of 12

'US Radium had this reputation where they had
been found legally liable for producing a radioactive powdered paint that killed
many young women who painted fluorescent watch tiles,' said Professor
Martino-Taylor. In her findings, one of the compounds that was
sprayed upon the public was called 'FP2266', according to the army's documents,
and was manufactured by US Radium. The compound, also known as Radium 226, was
the same one that killed and sickened many of the US Radium workers.The Army has admitted that it added a
fluorescent substance to the 'harmless' compound, but whether or not the
additive was radioactive remains classified.Professor Martino-Taylor has not been able to
find if the Army ever followed up on the long term health of the residents
exposed to the compound. In 1972, the
government destroyed the Pruitt-Igoe houses.Upon learning of the professor's findings,
Missouri lawmakers called on the Army to detail the tests.'I share and understand the renewed anxiety of
members of the St. Louis communities that were exposed to the spraying of (the
chemicals) as part of Army tests during the Cold War,' Senator Claire McCaskill
wrote to Army Secretary John McHugh.'The impacted communities were not informed of
the tests at the time and are reasonably anxious about the long term health
impacts the tests may have had on those exposed to the airborne
chemicals.'Senator Roy Blunt called the findings
'absolutely shocking.''The idea that thousands of Missourians were
unwillingly exposed to harmful materials in order to determine their health
effects is absolutely shocking. It should come as no surprise that these
individuals and their families are demanding answers of government officials,'
Senator Blunt said.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

It has become common to argue that appeasing Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Third Reich was a major cause for the slaughter that occurred during World War II. Absent from this argument, however, is that Hitler's and the Nazi Third Reich's "security through superiority" doctrine was their undoing and led to their devastating, including the military occupation of their nation.

Government leaders typically argue that their prime responsibility is the maintenance of national security. They do so by propagating the "security through superiority" doctrine. It is an

ideology that is often invoked but rarely scrutinized. It is easy and all to simplistic to equate strength with military power and safety. Vulnerability and weakness, or small militaries, are usually derided and associated with danger and insecurity. [1]

Fearing to be viewed as too weak, too appeasing, too easily pushed around, some government leaders are prone to build and maintain large land and sea armies. They either spend enormous resources on developing massive and deadly weapons systems, or at least try and purchase them. These same government officials are usually prone to use threats of military force in efforts to coerce or bully opponents.

Strong and superior national security states appear more belligerent and more likely to initiate conflicts and wars than vulnerable national security states that pursue political, diplomatic, and more peaceful-oriented strategies. Powerful and overbearing national security states misinterpret their opponents actions, imagine fears and threats, justify their actions, and pursue "any means necessary" to prevent embarrassing mistakes.

Strong national security states have to distort geopolitical processes and history while devouring their own. For decades, the US has declared that "any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States". In hindsight, Persian Gulf nations merely wanted to develop petroleum resources to improve their economies and societies.

The US justified a superior national security state, expanded its military presence around the world, and even committed genocidal policies against more weaker and vulnerable nations, like Vietnam, to prevent the supposed spread of communism and due to the Domino Theory. While the Domino Theory never transpired, communism was not always spread by steel but popular, democratic movements.

Strong national security states increase international tensions, making their nation and the world less secure. They project hostility, aggressiveness, and belligerency onto more vulnerable countries. Cuba's communists never did launch an assault against the US - but the US did attempt to invade Cuba. Neither did the Sandinistas invade or bomb the US as the Reagan Administration propagated. But the US did attack and bomb Nicaragua.

The John F Kennedy administration constantly verbalized a "missile gap" theory. What this really meant was a massive increase of nuclear-biological-chemical weapons that led to the illogical Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. The Ronald Reagan administration, along with those that followed, argued for a "margin of safety". This actually meant superiority through military strength. The George W Bush administration's ill-fated preemptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed a kind of "absolute" national security.

But like the Third Reich, a strong absolute national security state and its "security through superiority" doctrine is having a devastating impact on the US In retrospection, a more stronger national security would have sought diplomacy, appeasement, accommodation, and would have trusted other nations to help bring to justice those responsible for September 11. Real superiority would have meant pursuing a policy of patience and "smart" power.

In the great majority of species, conflict between two animals of the same kind almost invariably stops short of slaughter. The fight continues until one of the combatants gives in and retreats, or appeases, the other combatant. The jackdaw will offer the vulnerable back of his skull to the beak of his attacker. An appeasing wolf will avert his head and present his jugular vein to his assailant's teeth.

A submissive rat will roll over and expose his soft underbelly to the victor. A turkey will acknowledges defeat by stretching its neck out. Some animals will utterly stop fighting, signaling a peaceful compromise and truce. [2] Still yet, and even in hierarchical orders, alpha-leaders will not fight to their death. Instead, they carefully and cautiously choose their battles. These instincts help them survive and to save their strength.

Animals practice a "balance of power", more so than humans. Unlike animal kingdoms, human kingdoms are more likely to commit massacres and engage in genocidal wars. In the 20th century, and with reference to World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, tens of millions of humans were killed and slaughtered. Such extreme national security and violent aggression would have caused mass extinction among many animal species.

To prevent more regional human-like extinction, perhaps its time to scrutinize major national security states that practice security through "military" superiority. Again, real national security may be better realized through diplomatic, peaceful, and other more "vulnerable", overtures. Superiority through strength might be realized by trusting other nations and being susceptible to the ideals of appeasement and smaller militaries.

Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas' writings at www.beverlydarling.com and wn.com//dallasdarling.)

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.

MANILA - With
tensions intensifying between China and Japan over
contested islands and reefs in the East China Sea,
the Philippines is exploiting the distraction to
push its claims vis-a-vis China in the South China
Sea, via a controversial and potentially
destabilizing administrative order.

On
September 5, Philippine President Benigno Aquino
issued Administrative Order 29, which officially
renames the South China Sea as the West Philippine
Sea on national maps. After making the executive
order, he notably failed days later to meet
Chinese President Hu Jintao on the sidelines of
the recent Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) meeting held in Russia.

The
controversial order, which will be submitted to
the United Nations, aims to firm up Manila's
claims to disputed maritime

territories lying within
its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including over
the hotly contested Scarborough Shoal. Chinese and
Philippine military vessels squared off over the
disputed outcropping for several weeks earlier
this year.

Aquino justified the action by
saying "it is important to clarify which portions
we claim as ours versus the entirety of the South
China Sea." At the same time, he expressed hopes
for "a dialogue [with China] where we can have a
heart-to-heart talk and share our thoughts in
total honesty and openness".

China's
Foreign Ministry swiftly dismissed the order,
saying in a statement that "China claims
indisputable sovereignty over islands in the South
China Sea." Invoking Beijing's wide-ranging
nine-dash map of its claimed territories over the
maritime area, those claims include areas within
the Philippines' 200-mile EEZ.

The
Philippines' growing assertiveness in the face of
veiled Chinese threats is more than a calculated
strategy to push claims while China is preoccupied
with a potentially more volatile dispute with
Japan. Rather, Manila's emboldened position banks
on expected United States' assistance in the event
heated rhetoric boils over into armed
confrontation.

Outmanned,
outgunnedIn terms of military
expenditures, China's spending on naval capacities
dwarves that of other claimants in South China
Sea. While the Philippines' decrepit and
under-equipped armed forces subsists on annual
expenditures of around US$1.5 billion (ranking
59th in the world), China is the world's
second-largest military spender with a scheduled
annual budget of $129 billion in 2015.

Much of that spending is focused on the
country's fast expanding naval capabilities,
including ramped up "anti-access" and "blue water"
capabilities. Many strategic analysts contend that
China's official military expenditure is grossly
understated to avoid panic among its lesser armed
Southeast Asian neighbors.

The
Philippines' acute military weakness is a
reflection of many factors, including an excessive
strategic orientation towards internal threats
such as insurgency and terrorism, chronic
under-investment in military modernization, high
levels of official corruption in military
procurements, and a heavy strategic reliance on
treaty allies such as the US.

Two decades
after the closure of American bases in the
country, the Philippines has failed to establish
even a minimum deterrence capability. When faced
with Chinese incursions in 1995 at Mischief Reef,
Manila had no choice but to rely on moral suasion
and regional multilateral mediation. Over the next
decade-and-a-half, Manila's foreign policy with
Beijing focused on diplomacy and trade to avoid
any territorial confrontation.

That
changed in 2010 when China stepped up its
paramilitary and military activities in adjacent
waters, pressing its territorial claims with a new
sense of vigor and destiny. To many Southeast
Asian states, those military moves marked the end
of China's two-decade long "charm-offensive",
where its diplomacy focused on economic aid and
exchange, and the beginning of rising territorial
tensions in both the South and East China Seas.

"The situation is made more complex with
China's navy becoming more influential within the
internal power equation in China, using the
territorial issue as a springboard to legitimize
their rising influence within the establishment,"
says prominent Filipino intellectual and
legislator Walden Bello. "There is a new sense of
China in the region. In the past, it was seen as a
big and influential neighbor, focused on internal
development with low profile external posturing.
But now we are entering a 'post-Deng Xiaoping' era
of greater assertiveness, whereby you have a big
neighbor that is laying claim to the whole South
China Sea."

Enter Uncle SamThe
Philippines is arguably at the center of the US's
declared "pivot" policy towards Asia. Already
zeroed in on Asia's booming markets as an antidote
to its flailing domestic economy, and seemingly
aware of its strategic over-extension in the
Middle East, the US has returned to the region in
force to counterbalance China's rising power and
influence.

Rhetorically the pivot's accent
has been on benign issues such as trade,
investment and economic integration. But strategic
analysts believe the policy is a clear attempt to
draw lines against heightened Chinese
assertiveness and preserve America's national
interest in freedom of navigation in economically
important Asian waterways.

"You are
talking about a US that understands it is
overstretched in its commitments in the Eurasian
region. However, on the question of the pivot to
Asia, a large part of US interest in the region is
centered on China," says Herman Kraft, former
director of the Manila-based Institute for
Strategic and Developmental Studies (ISDS). "In
one sense it is a logical rebalancing. But the
primary push in pivot to Asia is strategic
competition with China."

Frontline treaty
allies like the Philippines and Japan have been
among the most vocal proponents of a stronger
American presence in the region, legitimizing
Washington's long-time claim to serve as the
Pacific's "anchor of stability and prosperity."
China's recent actions, fueled in part by growing
popular nationalism, have pushed a new convergence
of American and its Asian treaty allies' strategic
interests.

Whether that convergence
fosters stability or stokes confrontation is yet
to be seen. When US allies such as the Philippines
openly called for enhanced military relations and
defense cooperation to counterbalance China, a
flustered Beijing has responded with even greater
assertiveness in recent months.

"Ironically in its attempt to avoid
strategic encirclement, China has - through its
increasingly aggressive posture - legitimized the
US's pivot to Asia, which is obviously to contain
Beijing," says Bello.

Crucial node
True to its historical role as an American
colony, the Philippines is emerging as a crucial
node in America's "pivot".

Subic and
Clark, the former site of the US's largest
overseas military bases, are expected to play a
key role in the implementation of the US's new
strategic policy. Although there is an explicit
constitutional prohibition against the
establishment of permanent US bases in the
Philippines, Manila has recently expressed its
willingness to host an increased "rotational" US
presence at the bases.

In June, Defense
Undersecretary for defense affairs Honorio Azcueta
said, "They can come here provided they have prior
coordination from the government." Manila has
recently welcomed US warships and fighter planes
to enhance the two sides' interoperability. The US
is set to deploy its most advanced jets and
warships to the region, including the EA-18G
fighter plane which is capable of flying faster
than the speed of sound and is geared to jam enemy
air defense capabilities.

Washington has
said it intends to deploy 60% of its surface ships
to the region, amounting to six aircraft carriers
and the majority of its submarines, littoral
combat ships and destroyers. It has already
reportedly deployed 60% of its aircraft carrier
battle groups and nuclear submarines to the
region.

Despite growing fiscal challenges,
Washington recently tripled its Foreign Military
Fund (FMF) allocation to the Philippines, from
$11.9 million to $30 million. Apart from selling
two Coast Guard Cutters to the Philippines,
Washington has also apparently agreed to provide
Manila with the P-3 Orion, the US Navy's frontline
maritime patrol aircraft. The US has also recently
deployed the USS North Carolina nuclear
submarine to Subic, a move met by increased
Chinese naval activity in nearly waters.

In April, the US and Philippines conducted
their annual joint Balikatan
(Shoulder-to-Shoulder) exercises with notable
modifications. The site of the exercises was
shifted to an area nearer to the disputed maritime
territories off the coast of Palawan); the number
of United States Air Force trainers was double the
size of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
trainees; and, the mission was primarily focused
on enhancing combined planning, readiness and
interoperability, including for sea-based
operations. All of these efforts came under US's
expressed commitment to enhance Manila's "minimum
credible defense posture".

In that
direction, reports revealed last month that the US
intends to install a second land-based early
detection radar system against ballistic missiles,
known as X-Band 2, in Japan. The US has claimed
the radar is aimed against the threat of North
Korea, but strategic analysts view the
installation as part of an emerging wider regional
missile defense shield against China's growing
anti-access and ballistic missile capabilities.

Those same analysts believe that the
Philippines could be a primary site for expanding
such a defensive arc into Southeast Asia. The US
is known to have concerns about China's ability to
target with ballistic missiles US forces based on
the Pacific island of Guam, making the
installation of X-Band radar in the Philippines a
potential frontline strategic priority.

Fiscal, geopolitical
realitiesThat said, there are several
considerable constraints against a full and
credible American "pivot" towards Asia. Manila and
other Asian allies are now anxiously evaluating
the extent of American assistance they can expect
to receive should tensions with China flare up
into armed conflict.

With an anemic
economic recovery and constant bipartisan
wrangling over fiscal and debt legislation, the US
Pentagon now faces across-the-board budget cuts to
the tune of $500 billion. America's weak fiscal
position could thus badly undermine its ability to
redeploy forces to the Asia-Pacific.

Treaty allies such as the Philippines are
already complaining about their small absolute and
relative share of FMF allocations. Despite a
recently tripling of Manila's allocation, the
Philippines' share of FMF earmarked for East Asia
is half the amount it received in 2006.

"We hope this is not indicative of the
priority placed on the Philippines as a regional
partner, as even non-treaty allies appear to be
getting a bigger share of the FMF allocation,"
lamented Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del
Rosario in recent public comments.

The
interpretation of the US-Philippine 1951 Mutual
Defense Treaty is a thornier issue. Unlike
previous US administrations, including the Jimmy
Carter and Bill Clinton administrations, Barack
Obama's government has yet to explicitly affirm
its commitment to come to the Philippines' defense
over contested maritime territories. Some analysts
believe Aquino pushed through the recent Western
Philippine Sea order to compel Washington to take
a stronger public stand on the issue.

So
far, America's expressed commitment has been vague
and scenario-based, meaning there has been no
clear indication of where, when, and how
Washington will come to Manila's rescue in the
case of an armed clash with China over disputed
territories. Washington has maintained this vague
footing despite frequent requests from Philippine
leaders to make a public statement in defense of
their claims.

Many in the Philippines are
thus wary of the centrality of US-China relations.
Locked in virtual economic co-dependence,
Washington likely sees its ties with Beijing as
the most consequential bilateral relationship of
the next few decades. Many in Manila fear America
could for the sake of systemic stability give
policy priority to the preservation of great power
harmony over defending marginal treaty allies like
the Philippines.

Moreover, it is not clear
whether the US will be able to disengage quickly
from the Middle East and South Asia and place
strategic priority on its Asia-Pacific "pivot".
With Iran threatening to close the strategically
important Strait of Hormuz if it comes under
attack from Israel, America has recently rapidly
bolstered its naval presence in the Persian Gulf.

"I doubt that US will be able to fully and
smoothly pivot to Asia because it is heavily
pinned-down in the Middle East, especially in
light of growing tensions over Iran's nuclear
program and Israel's constant blackmailing," says
Filipino legislator Bello. "Russia and China also
have an interest in keeping US pinned down
elsewhere, away from Asia."

Richard
Javad Heydarian is a foreign affairs analyst
based in Manila. He can be reached at
jrheydarian@gmail.com

Sometimes
a few facts tell important stories. The American economy now is full of facts
that tell stories that you really don't want, but need, to hear.

Where
are we now?

Did
you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007
level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed.
The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion
in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2
trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to
$55,000 per U.S.
household.

The
amount of debt is one thing. The burden of interest payments is another. The
Treasury now has a preponderance of its debt issued in very short-term
durations, to take advantage of low short-term interest rates. It must
frequently refinance this debt which, when added to the current deficit, means
Treasury must raise $4 trillion this year alone. So the debt burden will
explode when interest rates go up.

The
government has to get the money to finance its spending by taxing or borrowing.
While it might be tempting to conclude that we can just tax upper-income
people, did you know that the U.S.
income tax system is already very progressive? The top 1% pay 37% of all income
taxes and 50% pay none.

Did
you know that, during the last fiscal year, around three-quarters of the
deficit was financed by the Federal Reserve? Foreign governments accounted for
most of the rest, as American citizens' and institutions' purchases and sales
netted to about zero. The Fed now owns one in six dollars of the national debt,
the largest percentage of GDP in history, larger than even at the end of World
War II.

The
Fed has effectively replaced the entire interbank money market and large
segments of other markets with itself. It determines the interest rate by
declaring what it will pay on reserve balances at the Fed without regard for
the supply and demand of money. By replacing large decentralized markets with
centralized control by a few government officials, the Fed is distorting
incentives and interfering with price discovery with unintended economic
consequences.

Did
you know that the Federal Reserve is now giving money to banks, effectively
circumventing the appropriations process? To pay for quantitative easing—the
purchase of government debt, mortgage-backed securities, etc.—the Fed credits
banks with electronic deposits that are reserve balances at the Federal
Reserve. These reserve balances have exploded to $1.5 trillion from $8 billion
in September 2008.

The
Fed now pays 0.25% interest on reserves it holds. So the Fed is paying the
banks almost $4 billion a year. If interest rates rise to 2%, and the Federal
Reserve raises the rate it pays on reserves correspondingly, the payment rises
to $30 billion a year. Would Congress appropriate that kind of money to
give—not lend—to banks?

The
Fed's policy of keeping interest rates so low for so long means that the real
rate (after accounting for inflation) is negative, thereby cutting
significantly the real income of those who have saved for retirement over their
lifetime.

The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also being financed by the Federal
Reserve rather than by appropriations, severing the checks and balances needed
for good government. And the Fed's Operation Twist, buying long-term and
selling short-term debt, is substituting for the Treasury's traditional debt
management.

This
large expansion of reserves creates two-sided risks. If it is not unwound, the
reserves could pour into the economy, causing inflation. In that event, the Fed
will have effectively turned the government debt and mortgage-backed securities
it purchased into money that will have an explosive impact. If reserves are
unwound too quickly, banks may find it hard to adjust and pull back on loans.
Unwinding would be hard to manage now, but will become ever harder the more the
balance sheet rises.

The
issue is not merely how much we spend, but how wisely, how effectively. Did you
know that the federal government had 46 separate job-training programs? Yet a
47th for green jobs was added, and the success rate was so poor that the
Department of Labor inspector general said it should be shut down. We need to
get much better results from current programs, serving a more carefully
targeted set of people with more effective programs that increase their
opportunities.

Did
you know that funding for federal regulatory agencies and their employment
levels are at all-time highs? In 2010, the number of Federal Register pages
devoted to proposed new rules broke its previous all-time record for the second
consecutive year. It's up by 25% compared to 2008. These regulations alone will
impose large costs and create heightened uncertainty for business and
especially small business.

This
is all bad enough, but where we are headed is even worse.

President
Obama's budget will raise the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 80.4% in two years,
about double its level at the end of 2008, and a larger percentage point
increase than Greece
from the end of 2008 to the beginning of this year.

Under
the president's budget, for example, the debt expands rapidly to $18.8 trillion
from $10.8 trillion in 10 years. The interest costs alone will reach $743
billion a year, more than we are currently spending on Social Security,
Medicare or national defense, even under the benign assumption of no
inflationary increase or adverse bond-market reaction. For every one percentage
point increase in interest rates above this projection, interest costs rise by
more than $100 billion, more than current spending on veterans' health and the
National Institutes of Health combined.

Worse,
the unfunded long-run liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid add
tens of trillions of dollars to the debt, mostly due to rising real benefits
per beneficiary. Before long, all the government will be able to do is finance
the debt and pay pension and medical benefits. This spending will crowd out all
other necessary government functions.

What
does this spending and debt mean in the long run if it is not controlled? One
result will be ever-higher income and payroll taxes on all taxpayers that will
reach over 80% at the top and 70% for many middle-income working couples.

Did
you know that the federal government used the bankruptcy of two auto companies
to transfer money that belonged to debt holders such as pension funds and paid
it to friendly labor unions? This greatly increased uncertainty about creditor
rights under bankruptcy law.

The
Fed is adding to the uncertainty of current policy. Quantitative easing as a
policy tool is very hard to manage. Traders speculate whether and when the Fed
will intervene next. The Fed can intervene without limit in any credit
market—not only mortgage-backed securities but also securities backed by
automobile loans or student loans. This raises questions about why an
independent agency of government should have this power.

When
businesses and households confront large-scale uncertainty, they tend to wait
for more clarity to emerge before making major commitments to spend, invest and
hire. Right now, they confront a mountain of regulatory uncertainty and a
fiscal cliff that, if unattended, means a sharp increase in taxes and a sharp
decline in spending bound to have adverse effect on the economy. Are you
surprised that so much cash is waiting on the sidelines?

What's
at stake?

We
cannot count on problems elsewhere in the world to make Treasury securities a
safe haven forever. We risk eventually losing the privilege and great benefit
of lower interest rates from the dollar's role as the global reserve currency.
In short, we risk passing an economic, fiscal and financial point of no return.

Suppose
you were offered the job of Treasury secretary a few months from now. Would you
accept? You would confront problems that are so daunting even Alexander
Hamilton would have trouble preserving the full faith and credit of the United States.
Our first Treasury secretary famously argued that one of a nation's greatest
assets is its ability to issue debt, especially in a crisis. We needed to honor
our Revolutionary War debt, he said, because the debt "foreign and
domestic, was the price of liberty."

History
has reconfirmed Hamilton's
wisdom. As historian John Steele Gordon has written, our nation's ability to
issue debt helped preserve the Union in the
1860s and defeat totalitarian governments in the 1940s. Today, government
officials are issuing debt to finance pet projects and payoffs to interest
groups, not some vital, let alone existential, national purpose.

The
problems are close to being unmanageable now. If we stay on the current path,
they will wind up being completely unmanageable, culminating in an unwelcome
explosion and crisis.

The
fixes are blindingly obvious. Economic theory, empirical studies and historical
experience teach that the solutions are the lowest possible tax rates on the
broadest base, sufficient to fund the necessary functions of government on
balance over the business cycle; sound monetary policy; trade liberalization;
spending control and entitlement reform; and regulatory, litigation and
education reform. The need is clear. Why wait for disaster? The future is now.

The
authors are senior fellows at Stanford
University's Hoover
Institution. They have served in various federal government policy positions in
the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of
Economic Advisers.

A
version of this article appeared September 17, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of
The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Magnitude of the Mess We're In.

Copyright
2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This
copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of
this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law.
For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones
Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

Obama
Seeks Arab Spring 'Reform'From the
HomePage Factory Riot Spotlights Breaking Point in China Workers at China's huge Foxconn factory complex said this
week's rioting stemmed in part from growing tensions over strict rules, in
events that raise questions about the sustainability of China's
manufacturing machine.

Subscriber Content Read Preview

Gaming
Out the Fate of the Fiscal Cliff Capital: Is Congress going to drive the U.S. economy
over the fiscal cliff? Is Washington
so dysfunctional that Congress and the president will let taxes rise sharply
and spending be cut across the board? Maybe, writes David Wessel.

Your Body's Peak Time for Everything A growing
body of research suggests that the body clock can help pinpoint the best times
of day to perform specific tasks, from solving work problems to playing
racquetball.

Subscriber Content Read Preview

Bond
Yields Up in Europe on Bailout Fears Investors sold Spanish and Italian
government bonds on worries that the European Central Bank's plan to ease debt
costs in those countries could be hampered by Spain's delay in making a formal
bailout request.

More
in Opinion Israel Must Be
'Eliminated'Fran Tarkenton: Pro
Football Keeps FumblingMatthew
Kaminski: The Accidental Architect of a New EuropeOfficially HorribleQuid Pro Quota at Justice

Question of the DayHave you had to sacrifice
anything from your household budget to allow for higher cellphone/mobile data
expenses?

Question of the DayWill the controversial
Seahawks/Packers call help end the NFL referee lockout?

Question of the DayIf you had
venture-capital money to invest by the end of the year, which sector would you
back?

See all Discussion GroupsMore in Opinion Israel Must Be
'Eliminated'Fran Tarkenton: Pro
Football Keeps FumblingMatthew
Kaminski: The Accidental Architect of a New EuropeOfficially HorribleQuid Pro Quota at Justice<![CDATA[

Journal
Communityclose windowHelloYour question to the Journal Community Your
comments on articles will show your real name and not a username.Why?

Why
use your real name? The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and
meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full
name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can
deteriorate when real identities are not provided.

Please
enter your first and last nameFirst name:Last name:Create a Journal
Community profile to avoid this message in the future. (As a member you agree
to use your real name when participating in the Journal Community)

PostCancel Privacy PolicyCommunity RulesNotice:Your participation access with Journal Community has been disabled due
to violation of Journal Community Guidelines.

If
you feel you have reached this status change in error, please contact
TBD@wsj.com

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com